A non-racist, unbigoted inquiry into the core teachings of Islam and what it all means (if anything) for non-Muslims

The Meaning of Jihad

The following is excerpted from an article by Bassam Tawil, a scholar based in the Middle East. It was originally published at the Gatestone Institute here: The Real Threat to Europe.

The late Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, predicted that Islam would conquer Europe without even firing a shot. To understand and explain the fate awaiting Europe, it is necessary to listen seriously to what the upper echelons of Islam say to each about their own intentions — in Arabic. These messages are quite different from those on Western television. What they say to one another is that the mission of Islam is to lead the whole world and eradicate all other religions, as they have been made irrelevant by the Qur'an.

Their doctrine appears openly and without reservation in books and on websites. It is spread in local languages in mosques by the imams in their communities throughout Europe. These communities operate according to an ancient Islamic code: They command immigration; then the forming of enclaves in the host country, then the eventual violent takeover of the host.

Once this process is complete, all the Islamic communities will unite to form the Islamic Caliphate. It will have no borders and no other identity. Then there will be Peace. This, they say, was the state of affairs under Muhammad and this will be the state of affairs in the future.

It is markedly apparent to us, however, that the world refuses to listen to what the Islamists are saying. Anyone who dares to issue a warning is called, among other names, an alarmist or a racist.

On the rare occasion when an expert does warn of the coming danger, the global media turn him into an object of scorn and derision. There seems to be less than no wish even to look at Islamist ideology. Al Jazeera, run by the Emir of Qatar to promote radical Islam, has instructed its American division not to use the words "terrorist," "militant," "extremist," "jihad" and "Islamist." Does anyone seriously think they are doing that to promote transparency?

Throughout history, society has disregarded — and often even persecuted — any messenger who says things it does not like, such as Giordano Bruno, burned at the stake in 1600 for wounding the world's narcissism by proposing that stars were other suns that could have other planets. Recently, global terrorism expert Steven Emerson, who made the 1994 documentary "Terrorists Amongst Us: Jihad in America," about the dangers the U.S. would face from radical Islam, has been vilified and ridiculed for an exaggerated comment about Birmingham. His apology may have reflected an error about the facts, but his central message was right. It did not negate his warning about the future danger these Muslim enclaves will present to Europe. Paris is not the only city with areas off-limits to police. Every tourist who goes to Marseilles, Köln, Berlin and Frankfurt is warned by local inhabitants about places to be bypassed.

The same is true of Stephen Coughlin, who was a Major in a Military Intelligence unit of the U.S. Army. Asked, as a lawyer, to prepare a report on Islamic sharia law, he delivered, in July 2007, the most meticulous, painstaking, thoroughly-documented report: "To Our Great Detriment": Ignoring What Extremists Say about Jihad." He was promptly fired. He had apparently come up with the "wrong" answer. The U.S. Army, it seems, had expected to hear that sharia law was not much different from the Magna Carta.

Commentators in Europe all had opinions about the terrorist attacks at the Charlie Hebdo office and the kosher supermarket in Paris. They reverentially discussed the motivation of the terrorists, the anti-Muslim atmosphere in Europe and concern over additional global jihad attacks, but showed distressingly little understanding of the meaning of jihad.